Okay, so it begins. This is near and dear to my heart because I live in the Greater Cincinnati Area, and this could possibly spill over into nearby
areas, one in which I live.

The skinny on the Black Lives Matter (BLM) statement is basically this excerpt right here, which describes that, either way, they are going to "take
action" regardless on what the grand jury decides:

Brian Taylor with Black Lives Matter said the group will take action no matter what the grand jury decides.

"If there is no indictment clearly we'll be calling up to talk about the injustice of that and making demands that are related to that injustice. If
there is an indictment, as we know around the country, they don't automatically lead to convictions, so we will be pushing for a conviction," Taylor
said. "Our plan is to honor the aggravation and the desire for justice from the community and to give a vehicle for people to be able to express their
discontent."

Now, I'm no legal expert, but I do work in the field--I am under the assumption that the legal system, including the grand jury investigation,
IS the first step toward justice, as is a trial, as is a finding of guilt or non-guilt. Of course, the system doesn't always get it right--we
all know that--but to me, preempting any official decisions or findings with comments like 'we'll take action regardless' screams to me that this
group is itching for a fight, no matter what...seems to me that maybe they received a Jump To Conclusions Mat and are using it for this case.

Then there's this wording from the mother of Sam Dubose (who just had her son's funeral on Tuesday, I believe):

"Anybody to come out and go out there on the battlefield with us, I love them people because they fighting for a good cause.
They're standing with me for my son," Audrey Dubose said.

I take up issue with referring to these protests as a "battlefield," as that implies that there will be destruction or a physical fight in some way,
and while I fully empathize with her emotions in this case, she doesn't know if people who will join her "on the battlefield" will be fighting for a
good cause because she doesn't know what's in the heart of the individuals nor does she even know what the outcomes of the decisions or case are going
to be. Yes, the call for release of the bodycam video is appropriate, but BLM appears to be a preemptive strike no matter what happens, and to me,
that's irresponsible.

Officer Tensing's attorney made the following comment in this story:

Tensing's attorney Stew Mathews told WLWT over the phone he saw the video Monday and said people will be "somewhat surprised" at what it
shows.

In a story on Cincinnati.com, Officer
Tensing's attorney is noted as saying that he expects an indictment due to the "political climate" in the city right now.

In another story on Cincinnati.com, it
is noted that the bodycam footage will be released tomorrow, Thursday, July 30. We'll see if that happens.

A small (and probably insignificant) part of this entire story is that, while Dubose's mother is calling this a battlefield and the BLM group in
Cincinnati is vowing to act, regardless of outcome, Sam Dubose's sister offers a
call for peace:

Mathews spoke on the same day DuBose's family celebrated the victim's life at his funeral. Several relatives said they want justice for DuBose, but
they also want the community to remain calm no matter what the grand jury decides or what the body camera video shows when it is released following
that decision.

"Sam wasn't violent," said Terina Allen, DuBose's sister. "It would completely harm his memory if people were to take that route."

I sincerely hope that the community heeds her words and remains peaceful; I hope that the CPD remains calm and doesn't take a provocative stance; I
hope that the system is impartial and actually works, regardless of the outcome. If Officer Tensing did something illegal, he has earned his
punishment, but if Dubose did something in the wrong that caused Tensing to appropriately defend himself with deadly force under the law and
regulations that guide law enforcement, then no indictment should be handed down.

The family's attorney, Mark O'Mara, said releasing the video would show investigators respect the community and are working in transparent fashion.
Instead, he said, "they are hiding behind the antiquated suggestion that we have to protect the evidence."

"The family deserves dignity," O'Mara said. "The family will get dignity and respect when they get answers." O'Mara was the lead defense attorney
for George Zimmerman, the Florida man who was acquitted two years ago of the 2012 killing of 17-year-old Trayvon Martin.

All they're doing is rightly stating that regardless of any decision in this case there is a massive problem in the US which needs to be resolved, and
isn't being resolved.

The BLM movement is absolutely right to carry on pushing this, otherwise nothing will change.

What's your proposed alternative? Do nothing? Shut down any discussion about what's happening? Do what you've all been doing for the last 50 years and
wait for the next shooting to spark yet another LA riot scenario?

Things need to change, and this group is doing nothing more than pushing for that change.

Sorry, I agree 100% with Dubose's mom. I see nothing wrong with what she said. It IS a battlefield. They ARE fighting to make their voices heard.
On a 'battlefield', there's no room for fence-sitters... they are taking a stand and I like it.

If my unarmed son had be needlessly killed, I'd be mad as a hornet. And after I laid him to rest, I'd be on a mission.

I think it's important to consider the Human emotion in these instances.
I think we all agree on the following:

1. Protest is your right.
2. Sometimes, angry protest is understandable.
3. Sometimes, violent protest is understandable (there is a difference between understandable and right)
4. There will always be individuals wanting to take advantage of a situation.
5. There will always be groups wanting to take political advantage of a situation.

The reason I say these things is because we see a hell of a lot of very biased and very hypocritical opinions expressed on ATS, with people changing
their minds as often as their socks depending on the race of the person they're talking about, the political side they want to defend or the
conspiracy they want to believe exists.

For example, with Ferguson, the police were supported by many here as they amassed weapons on the streets and violently reacted to protesters.
But, when discussing the Bundy Ranch case, those same posters decided it was law enforcement that was in the wrong, and without even being that
aggressive, and while confronting an armed gang of men who had repeatedly threatened to start shooting.

My point is violent protest is almost expected now, not because of race, not because of politics, but simply because of anger and a deep sense of
injustice. Yes, there will be people (on both sides) looking to take advantage of the situation or score political points, but I hope people can just
try to watch this unfold and follow it without resorting to the usual hypocrisies and bombastic rhetoric.

What's your proposed alternative? Do nothing? Shut down any discussion about what's happening? Do what you've all been doing for the last 50 years and
wait for the next shooting to spark yet another LA riot scenario?

First off, who is this 'you all' of whom you speak? How do you know that I'm included in this group? Also, the L.A. riots weren't 50 years ago.

But anyhoo, my proposed (and current course of) action is to be logical and appropriate in this case--wait until the evidence, whether it's damning or
exonerating for the officer--and then proceed accordingly.

Nothing good comes from stating that you're going to "act" (whatever that means) regardless of the outcome of the case, either definitely "acting" if
there is no acquittal (regardless of the evidence, apparently) and claiming that the outcome is an injustice, or that they're going to try and sway
the justice system into a finding of guilty (apparently regardless of the evidence) if there is an indictment. This is just preemptive provocation on
the BLM's part in this scenario, and it doesn't serve the purpose that you claim...honestly, it serves no positive purpose unless the goal is to just
so something, regardless if it is warranted.

Things need to change, and this group is doing nothing more than pushing for that change.

You have no appropriate evidence in this particular case in order to claim that things need to change. You're doing exactly what the BLM group is
doing, and your claim is based on a foundation of ignorance in this particular case.

All cases are unique and deserve to be treated that way, not lumped into something that you define as 'needing to be changed' when you have no
concrete proof of that.

originally posted by: six67seven
Sorry, I agree 100% with Dubose's mom. I see nothing wrong with what she said. It IS a battlefield. They ARE fighting to make their voices heard.
On a 'battlefield', there's no room for fence-sitters... they are taking a stand and I like it.

If my unarmed son had be needlessly killed, I'd be mad as a hornet. And after I laid him to rest, I'd be on a mission.

Flame away!

But you have no proof that he was "needlessly killed," so therein lies my whole point about there's no need to use insinuating terms like
"battlefield" in this scenario.

I'd be sad, angry, confused, and frustrated, too, but like she is quoted as saying in at least on of my links: She doesn't have answers for many of
her questions, such as what's on the bodycam video. I get the allegorical comparison to a battlefield, but we all know that this could erupt into
violence and destruction very easily, so language like that has no place, imo.

But to each their own in that interpretation, but I've read enough on how language subconsciously affects people (hell, I used to be in marketing) to
know that calling the protests a "battlefield" is not a step in quelling potential violence.

originally posted by: six67seven
Sorry, I agree 100% with Dubose's mom. I see nothing wrong with what she said. It IS a battlefield. They ARE fighting to make their voices heard.
On a 'battlefield', there's no room for fence-sitters... they are taking a stand and I like it.

If my unarmed son had be needlessly killed, I'd be mad as a hornet. And after I laid him to rest, I'd be on a mission.

Flame away!

But you have no proof that he was "needlessly killed," so therein lies my whole point about there's no need to use insinuating terms like
"battlefield" in this scenario.

originally posted by: Rocker2013
I think it's important to consider the Human emotion in these instances.
I think we all agree on the following:

1. Protest is your right.

Well, peaceful protest is your right--that's worth correcting.

2. Sometimes, angry protest is understandable.

Sure, as long as it remains peaceful (no destruction of property, harm to individuals, breaking of laws, etc.)

3. Sometimes, violent protest is understandable (there is a difference between understandable and right)

No, I don't agree with that, and I'm certain many on here do not.

4. There will always be individuals wanting to take advantage of a situation.
5. There will always be groups wanting to take political advantage of a situation.

Both go without saying.

For example, with Ferguson, the police were supported by many here as they amassed weapons on the streets and violently reacted to
protesters.
But, when discussing the Bundy Ranch case, those same posters decided it was law enforcement that was in the wrong, and without even being that
aggressive, and while confronting an armed gang of men who had repeatedly threatened to start shooting.

Well, these are apples and oranges. For one, the protests in Ferguson were based on incorrect information and a meme (Hands Up, Don't Shoot) that was
based on a lie. So, every single illegal act of aggression on part of the rioters and protestors didn't even have an appropriate basis on which to act
that way, and the officers did what they had to do in order to keep these criminals from further destroying things and harming individuals, to include
those same police officers.

The Bundy Ranch issue is a completely different scenario altogether and speaks to government overreach, heavy handedness, and downright bullying. I
don't know about in Nevada, but in Indiana, citizens have the right to use firearms against law enforcement who are illegally on their property. I've
since jettisoned most of the information from my brain, but at the time of the BR debacle, I did a ton of research into it, and I don't really take a
side on this issue--I can see it from both sides. But in saying that, I abhor that 84% of the land in Nevada is 'owned' by the federal government and
that they charge citizens to let their cattle graze on the public land. The land should exist for the people to use, not for profit.

But like I said, these are absolutely different scenarios that don't even compare.

My point is violent protest is almost expected now, not because of race, not because of politics, but simply because of anger and a deep sense
of injustice. Yes, there will be people (on both sides) looking to take advantage of the situation or score political points, but I hope people can
just try to watch this unfold and follow it without resorting to the usual hypocrisies and bombastic rhetoric.

But why? Why should we have to just "watch this unfold," when it shouldn't be unfolding in the ways that it does? You appear to basically be saying,
"Be apathetic about it and don't take a side...just let it happen."

I don't care if violent protests and riots are based on a sense of injustice or misplaced anger--they have no place in our society, especially
when there is no logical foundation for it, as in this Dubose case so far.

You're about to learn why there can't be any meaningful or constructive "discussion" or dialogue with the BLM people and/or their supporters. I'd
strongly recommend you get your house up for sale ASAP!

"Soros-sponsored organizations helped mobilize protests in Ferguson, building grass-roots coalitions on the ground backed by a nationwide online and
social media campaign.

Other Soros-funded groups made it their job to remotely monitor and exploit anything related to the incident that they could portray as a conservative
misstep, and to develop academic research and editorials to disseminate to the news media to keep the story alive."

That's a half-assed answer, because when you feel your life is threatened, deadly force is not murder. At this point, the only thing that the public
knows is that a guy go shot in the head, and that Tensing claims that he felt his life was threatened by either being dragged by the moving vehicle,
or being thrown to the ground by the moving vehicle.

Much more goes into the specifications of murder in the State of Ohio than that simpleton answer--mitigating factors, self defense, why the firearm
discharged, etc...all of that comes into play on whether or not there is evidence of murder.

Grand jury investigations do not need the same level of proof in order to return an indictment (which they just did, btw...he has been indicted on the
charge of murder, but that in no way means that it will stick).

Now my eyes are on BLM to see how they respond...plus, I want to see the video, that apparently will only be released up to the point of the shooting.
I think that's crap, as I'd like to see how the officer reacts after it happens.

You're about to learn why there can't be any meaningful or constructive "discussion" or dialogue with the BLM people and/or their supporters. I'd
strongly recommend you get your house up for sale ASAP!

I'm good...my wife and I are both ex-military, and we have plenty of personal protection at our disposal.

That's a half-assed answer, because when you feel your life is threatened, deadly force is not murder. At this point, the only thing that the public
knows is that a guy go shot in the head, and that Tensing claims that he felt his life was threatened by either being dragged by the moving vehicle,
or being thrown to the ground by the moving vehicle.

Much more goes into the specifications of murder in the State of Ohio than that simpleton answer--mitigating factors, self defense, why the firearm
discharged, etc...all of that comes into play on whether or not there is evidence of murder.

Grand jury investigations do not need the same level of proof in order to return an indictment (which they just did, btw...he has been indicted on the
charge of murder, but that in no way means that it will stick).

Now my eyes are on BLM to see how they respond...plus, I want to see the video, that apparently will only be released up to the point of the shooting.
I think that's crap, as I'd like to see how the officer reacts after it happens.

Duh, apparently, you're not watching the live conference.

They just showed the video. Tensing murdered Dubose. What took place happened within 1-2 seconds, there was no "dragging". I'm confident it's
murder and that the court will see it as such.

"Soros-sponsored organizations helped mobilize protests in Ferguson, building grass-roots coalitions on the ground backed by a nationwide online and
social media campaign.

Other Soros-funded groups made it their job to remotely monitor and exploit anything related to the incident that they could portray as a conservative
misstep, and to develop academic research and editorials to disseminate to the news media to keep the story alive."

our boy loves to play the destabilization game.

That's all quite true. My question has been.....why play the destabilization game in the US? Of course, like 99% of Europeans, he hates the US and
its people, but that doesn't explain his spending 10s of Millions in the pursuit of a prompting a civil war......unless of course, he's hoping to ruin
what's left of the economy so he can tank the US dollar.

We trainers have spent the past decade trying to ingrain in our students the concept that the American police officer works a
battlefield every day he patrols his sector.

Cops on the beat are facing the same dangers on the streets as our brave soldiers
do in war. That is why commanders and tactical trainers stress the fact that even on the most uneventful portion of your tour, you can be subjected to
combat at a moment’s notice.

About the author
Glenn French, a retired Sergeant with the Sterling Heights (Mich.) Police Department, has 24 years police experience and served as the Team Commander
for the Special Response Team, and supervisor of the Sterling Heights Police Department Training Bureau. He has 16 years SWAT experience and
also served as a Sniper Team Leader, REACT Team Leader, and Explosive Breacher.

He is the author of the award-winning book Police Tactical Life Saver, which has been named the 2012 Public Safety Writers Association Technical
Manual of the year. Glenn is also the owner of Rubicon Tactical Strategies and can be reached at www.rubicontacticalstrategies.com.

The militarized police force believes our streets are a battlefield. You take issue with this woman's single use of the world 'battlefield' to
describe a struggle for justice, something far less concerning to any reasonable (civilian at least) person than the fact that nationwide, our law
enforcement officers are being indoctrinated to believe that they're soldiers.

Also:

"Love is a battlefield" -- Pat Benatar

Obviously Pat Benatar should have been locked up long ago for those disturbing lyrics inciting violence.

EDIT to add:

Everyone should be concerned with the fact that not only are we arming law enforcement as though they were the military, the people responsible
for training today's law enforcement officers are equating their jobs to that of an occupying force in a third world country.

If you don't see the problem here, maybe a history lesson is in order.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.